Ezra Levant exposes Justin Trudeau’s secret 2023 censorship committee, targeting political opponents like Rebel News—excluded from debates despite court wins—while expanding "disinformation" to include body image critiques and cognitive harms. The panel, including discredited figures like Craig Kielburger (funds to Trudeau’s family) and Bernie Farber (WHO-linked hoax), risks outsourcing power to tech oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg. Meanwhile, Boris Johnson’s proposed WHO pandemic treaty sparks divided UK reactions: working-class cities like Liverpool dismiss globalist concerns, while Derby shows awareness of the "Great Reset." Lewis Brackpool’s billboard tour reveals mixed views—some defend the WHO despite opposing Johnson, others remain skeptical—highlighting the need to educate on unelected bureaucratic overreach. Trudeau’s focus on silencing dissent, even amid crises like inflation and healthcare, underscores a broader trend of conservative pushback against globalist institutions, questioning whether they truly serve public interests. [Automatically generated summary]
Regulating the Internet: Painful Clips & Bucks00:07:23
Hello, my rebels.
Today I take you through a, I'm not going to call it a secret report, but it's redacted.
The names of who said what are kept secret.
There's no transcript.
It happened in secret.
We know it happened, but we just don't know who or who said what or who objected.
So it's really weird.
It's not democratic, but it's how Trudeau's censorship committee met to talk about how to fight disinformation, which they have now defined to include political propaganda, which is so clear.
They just mean how do we silence our opponents?
It's quite something.
I'm going to take you through it.
I'm going to take you through it.
I'm going to quote from their official publication.
You will find it weird that there is no name on this official publication.
They're keeping it secret.
If you're going to be a censor, you may as well go all the way.
That's today's show.
Before I get to it, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com, click subscribe, eight bucks a month.
That's a bargain or twice the price.
My shows every weekday, plus four weekly shows.
That's 36 shows a month just for eight bucks.
Go to rebelnewsplus.com, click subscribe.
Hey, do me a favor, because we don't take any money from Trudeau.
That's how we're able to be independent.
So we really do rely on those eight bucks.
If you don't mind going to Rebel News Plus and just clicking subscribe, frankly, even if you don't watch it every day, we sure could use the help.
Thanks.
Here's today's program.
Tonight, Trudeau's hand-picked censorship commissars want to go even further than he does.
I'll tell you the crazy things they intend to regulate in your life.
It's June 20th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious bug.
I find it remarkable that Justin Trudeau cares more about censoring you than about anything else in the country.
He's put more effort into it, introduced more bills in parliament about it, convened more panels, had more meetings and conferences about censoring Canadian citizens than he has about any other subject.
I can't get over it.
No one thinks that's a top priority.
It's not a priority at all.
It's the opposite of a priority.
It's the wrong thing to do.
It's not being done for Canadians.
It's being done against Canadians.
It's a private interest of Trudeau to silence his political opponents.
There is no Canadian public interest in it.
We've seen how he abuses these powers for his own interests.
Our little company, Rebel News, twice was banned from even attending the federal election debates, not as the moderator, but even in the room, just because Trudeau doesn't like us.
Twice, the federal court had to emergency, held an emergency hearing, and twice they agreed with us that Trudeau had violated our civil rights and ordered Trudeau to accredit us at the last moment.
But you see my point?
There was no public interest there.
There was no demand amongst Canadians for the government to nationalize election debates.
It was clearly a partisan takeover of part of the election.
It was supposed to be a non-partisan thing.
You know, I can't even believe I missed this before.
You know, Craig Kielberger, you know, the crooked, one of the crooked masterminds, one of the two brothers behind the we charity scam.
Can you tell me what his expertise was that put Justin Trudeau, put him on the board of that government debates commission, the one that banned Rebel News?
Is Craig Kielberger an expert at putting on public debates?
Was there a great groundswell by Canadians to have him run our election and the media companies that had run debates for decades simply wouldn't give in to Kielberger mania or something?
No, of course not.
It's obviously just a way to put a partisan Trudeau crony in a position of power to corrupt a non-partisan pillar of our democracy.
I mean, Kielberger funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Trudeau family, Trudeau's mom, his siblings, his wife.
Clearly, not an appropriate use of charity funds and clearly a conflict of interest for a politician to enrich himself by someone who bids for things from the government.
It's probably illegal, but it happened.
And only after the total implosion of Kielberger's charity did he step down from the Debates Commission.
What was he doing on there in the first place?
Well, that's what this whole regulate the internet thing feels like to me.
No one wanted it.
No one asked for it.
It's a negative benefit to the public.
It's a harm.
The only person or group that benefits are Trudeau and his clique, including hundreds of lawyers and bureaucrats being enriched along the way.
I mean, the Election Debates Commission really only had one job once every four years.
That's a few million bucks to pass around the money to Kielberger and friends.
But regulating the internet, that's an around-the-clock every single day project where tens of billions of dollars are at stake.
It is huge, but it's just as awful, just as unconstitutional, of course, and just as unwanted by Canadians.
No one's asking for this, but you can see why Trudeau and his cronies want to talk about it.
They want it done, but they'd rather talk about their enemies, which is how they conceive of their political opposition, than to, you know, do unfun things like fix broken airports or fix inflation.
You saw this, right?
Take a look at this.
Okay.
Was it a yay or a nay?
Yay.
Follow up on basically immediately what you ended with on the topic of being nimble.
You said in the speech, not ruling out future support and I'm guessing responding to incoming economic data and all that.
What is on the table?
what what potential future supports are being considered right now i think you know i meant what i said about the need to be agile the need to really be aware of the fact that this is a fast changing economic environment uh and
And so let me just, I'm just going to repeat what I said, which is we're going to watch the data.
We're going to spend some time talking to Canadians, seeing what is happening in their lives.
We're going to keep a close watch on the programs I've already described, which are being dispersed right now, and be mindful of the impact they are having.
And, you know, definitely keep the door open to further action as the global economic environment evolves and as the Canadian economy evolves.
Watching Canadian Lives Evolve00:02:54
And, you know, crucially, what we're going to be watching is the accomplishment of this soft landing.
I think we all know that that's going to be challenging, but really, Canada has a better shot than anybody else.
And I really can't emphasize too much How many global factors there are.
Yeah, I swear that reminds me of the Mr. Bean movie when everyone thinks he's an art expert flown in from London, England, but he literally has no clue.
And then he's forced to give a speech on a famous painting.
By the way, this painful clip I'm about to show you is actually shorter than the painful clip I just showed you of Christia Freeland trying to talk about inflation.
Who did it better?
Christia Freeland trying to talk about inflation or Mr. Bean trying to talk about a painting that he had never seen before.
Take a look.
And now for the second highlight of our day.
Dr. Bean, great English art scholar, is here to speak for a few minutes, not too long, doctor, on the subject of our new purchase.
Ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Bean of the National Gallery of the New York Times.
Yeah!
Hello.
I'm Dr. Bean, apparently.
And my job is to sit and look at paintings.
So, what have I learnt that I can say about this painting?
Well, firstly, it's quite big, which is excellent.
Because if it was really small, you know, microscopic, then hardly anybody would be able to see it, which would be a tremendous shame.
Secondly, and I'm getting quite near the end now of this analysis of this painting.
Yeah, I think Freeland prefers to talk about anything other than her actual job.
Misleading Political Communications00:14:20
You know, fix inflation, fix airports.
Here's a video from Montreal's airport, so it's not just Toronto that's in meltdown.
So you can see why Trudeau and his cronies would prefer to talk about anything other than what the country needs or wants.
They prefer to talk about what they need and want, and they need to demonize their opponents and silence their opponents, including us at Rebel News.
And let me pause for a moment to point out what's so sad here.
In the past, I actually think there would have been a lot of skepticism and resistance to Trudeau doing this from even liberal-leaning journalists.
I mean, nationalizing the leaders' debates.
What are you doing?
And now the censorship bills, I'm going to give you some new details in a moment.
I truly believe, or at least I'd like to believe, that there would have been some editorials and columns in the Globe and Mail, and even in the Toronto Star, against this, some other voices, like journalistic groups or privacy groups, but not one of them that I've seen because they've been co-opted, colonized, recruited, rented, absorbed, paid off.
They're in on it.
They asked for it.
So how can they oppose it?
Boosting Trudeau's favorite journalists with grants and privileges is simply the other side of the coin of punishing the journalists that Trudeau hates.
You can't very well join Trudeau's payroll, but then squawk when he goes after your competitors.
Really, it's just us, a ragtag independent media company and a few other tiny guys like True North that are outside the warm embrace of Trudeau and his pot of money.
So the rival journalists like that were being shut up.
We've had a great year, by the way, though, journalistically.
In February alone, I think I told you this, we had about 400 million views and impressions on all platforms, more than any newspaper in Canada.
And I just checked, if you can see here, this is from the official CBC advertising kit.
The CBC on any given month has just over 300 million visits a month.
So we actually had more visits.
They have 317 million on the average.
That's why we had 4 million.
We beat them.
That's why they're so mad at us, Trudeau, our corporate media competitors.
We absolutely owned the trucker convoy story.
It wasn't nothing that gave us 400 million views.
By the way, that's much larger than we normally get.
But it was our coverage of the truckers.
Not because we have magical powers or some magical access, because we simply went down there to talk to the truckers.
We drove across Canada with the truckers.
We didn't insult them or denounce them.
We chased down and debunked Trudeau's hoaxes, in fact.
Hoaxes that the media party fed.
I mean, come on.
I do ask that because, you know, given Canada's support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don't know if it's far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset.
Yeah, still waiting for the CBC's YouTube channel to be taken down for disinformation for that one, which is what I want to talk about today.
Fix inflation, fix the economy, fix housing prices, fix gas prices, fix our broken immigration system, fix our broken border at Wroxham Road, fix our inability to build anything because of the de facto veto that foreign-funded environmentalists have over our oil industry.
How about fix healthcare?
I don't mean COVID fear-mongering.
I mean, fix the broken system.
How about fixing Indian reserves with no water?
You want to do that?
How about doing something for the people instead of doing something to the people?
No chance.
So look at my news today.
I saw this in the National Post.
Liberals drop a plan to force takedowns of harmful content after censorship accusations.
Oh, that sounds promising.
What a happy headline.
The National Post, by the way, is owned by Post Media, which is the single largest recipient of Trudeau's media bailout, I guess, second only to the CBC.
I wonder if that's why they put that happy headline on it instead of the real news in it, which is Trudeau's hand-picked censors want to actually go even further than Trudeau proposed.
Let me read the first two sentences and then I'm going to read you some more.
The federal liberal government plans to shift gears on its controversial proposal to regulate online harms to an approach that puts the onus on digital platforms to deal with potentially harmful content.
The move comes after critics warned the original plan would amount to censorship and new documents released from a government-appointed advisory group show it supported a change in approach.
Okay, but now read the next two sentences.
However, most, if not all, members of the advisory group appointed by Heritage Canada have suggested that the categories of harms targeted should be broadened to include, among other things, misleading political communications, propaganda, and online content that promotes an unrealistic body image.
So just to be clear, this is the advice from Trudeau's hand-picked 12-person board of censors.
These are the people who will give life to his digital book burnings.
They'll choose the books to burn.
And here's what they said.
In addition to the five categories of content proposed by the government, they stated that the framework should also incorporate a range of both illegal and legally but possibly harmful content, including fraud, cyberbullying, defamation, propaganda, misleading political communications, and mass sharing of traumatic incidents.
They also suggested targeting content and algorithms that contribute to, quote, unrealistic body image and isolation or diminished memory concentration and ability to focus.
The government also consulted the experts about how it could address disinformation.
Yeah, so I'm not quite sure that that happy post-media headline was accurate.
Are you?
Did you hear that?
Propaganda is now going to be illegal.
Misleading political communications.
What exactly does that mean?
Body image censorship.
I like that one.
You know, they don't mean banning this image.
They mean promoting this image.
As in, if you show feminine women, thin, healthy women, you'll be censored.
You'll have to show fat women or more likely transgender women, X-Men, as someone called them.
Do you think I'm exaggerating?
But what else could they mean when they say they want the government to stop media companies from creating the wrong body image?
What else could they mean?
But back to the politics.
Trudeau doesn't really care about feminism or body image.
I mean, come on.
He just cares about raw power and he'll have it.
Imagine banning political propaganda.
I mean, propaganda, if you look at the root of the word, those are just messages that you propagate.
Now, it has a negative connotation, as in you're exaggerating something, you're spinning, you're partisan.
It's not just the facts.
So everyone thinks their opponent engages in propaganda while they themselves engage in the truth.
I mean, I think this is propaganda, hateful propaganda.
Actually, you tell me.
Here's a great clip we published just the other day showing how Trudeau engages in hate propaganda while accusing his opponents of engaging in hate propaganda.
Attack politics, divisive politics, negative, stirring up of hate and fear and differences.
Parouchement opposés à la vaccination.
Ils sont extrémistes.
Ils ne croient pas dans la science, ils sont souvent misogynes, souvent racistes.
Once you've used those methods to get elected, it becomes incredibly hard to govern responsibly for all citizens.
But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk.
This country is a country of openness, of respect, of compassion, of the rights of the individuals, of freedom.
Freedom to do what you want with your body.
The dirty secret is they work.
Even back in 2015, they work to get you elected.
Small fringe minority holding unacceptable views.
Once you start churning up anger, it just feeds on itself.
Those people are putting us all at risk.
Aaron O'Toole talks about, oh, yes, we need to unite people.
We need to bring people together.
He's talking about defending the rights of people who are anti-vaff.
But Nazi symbolism, racist imagery.
No to hatred and to Islamophobia.
No to terror and to racism.
Keep taking meaningful action to fight racism and discrimination in every form.
That's where we're seeing in Canada a certain number of people who stirred up that, starting to have it sort of turned back against them a little bit.
Yeah, but let me show you some more of what Trudeau plans to do.
And really, who's going to stop him?
Trudeau got the lowest vote ever recorded in a Canadian election for someone to become prime minister, just over 32% of those who voted.
And there was low voter turnout to begin with.
He has no mandate for any of this, but I mean, who's going to stop him?
Maybe someone like Jodi Wilson-Raybold might have the most honest woman to be in the federal cabinet in a generation, but Trudeau threw her out.
There's no room for a rule follower, constitution obeyer in Trudeau's world.
So I'm going to read for you some excerpts from one of these reports written by Trudeau's handpicked panel.
Yes, you can see I've taken it from the government website to the same effect.
Here's that panel, by the way.
I'll just name a couple of names.
Amarnath Amarasingham.
I know him from Twitter because he is, to use a word, a propagandist for Trudeau, against anything conservative.
God, he hates Trump.
He's got Trump derangement syndrome.
And that's all fine, except for that he's on the censorship panel.
He's not neutral.
I mean, there's just a few things he's written about rebel news before.
I mean, gee, do you think he'll recommend silencing us?
Here's one thing he wrote a little while ago.
I mean, it doesn't even matter if he's right or wrong, but he's not neutral.
He says, just this week, as for Levance, Rebel Media officially became an international embarrassment this week.
Oh, okay.
So you're the censor, are you?
I wonder if you're going to come from the rebel news.
PTs.
I don't know what that means.
PTs, rebel media getting trolled all day long.
Laugh out loud.
All right.
Here's one about us covering an accused terrorist murder in the Toronto area.
We did great reporting on this.
He didn't like it.
He said, apparently, rebel media has just arrived at the Hussain family home.
I'm sure when they are done with this story, it will be sufficiently batshit.
I wonder if they would have even wasted the gas if it was a white shooter.
Got it.
So his hatred for rebel news is exceeded only by his sympathy for a terrorist just because that terrorist happened to be Muslim instead of white.
You can have that kind of kooky opinion about how to cover terrorists and apparently that you can't cover terrorists if they're Muslim.
And that's really weird.
But this guy is in charge of censoring us because we wanted to do journalism and he didn't want us to do journalism.
Here's another one, Bernie Farber.
He's with the ironically named anti-hate lobby group, the one that was paid more than a quarter million dollars by Trudeau to accuse conservatives of hate that was actually in their contract.
Farber is such a kook.
Again, it's fine to be a kook, but he's the guy who circulated this hoax, this disinformation.
I don't know if you remember this.
You can see on the left, he had a weird anti-Semitic flyer that he claims was, quote, taken by a friend in Ottawa at the occupation.
So he's testifying to its provenance.
He's not saying, I just found this on the internet.
He is saying, I can supply the background information.
This photo was taken of the truckers.
He's testifying to its authenticity.
But look at on the right, the exact same flyer, creased in the exact same way, showing that the flyer was actually a photograph taken in Miami a week earlier.
Bernie Farber was conducting a hate hoax, disinformation for profit.
Yeah, and he doesn't like us much here at Rebel News either.
I mean, just a little sampling.
And what of Andrew Scheer, whose campaign director was Hamish Marshall, a co-founder of the virulent, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rebel media?
What is his responsibility today?
Yeah, look, we have people of all backgrounds who work here, Christian, Jewish, Muslim.
The chair of our board of advisors is a Muslim woman, Rahil Raza.
We're not against Muslims.
We're against people who are terrorists, whether or not they're Muslim or white or whatever.
But Farber would make it illegal to criticize any terrorist because he would call that Islamophobic if they're Muslim.
He says, always find it fun when mentioned in alt-right rebel, all the bigots, racists, and bullies salivate and retweet, like I could care less.
Yeah, do you think that guy was hired because he wants to silence rebel news?
Maybe just a tiny chance of that.
These are the people who are the censors, the most kooky, disinformant, like these are the worst people in the world in this job.
So anyways, these panelists had a review on disinformation.
It was done in secret.
Government Hides Expertise00:09:32
This is their report in the end.
No one got to vote on this.
There wasn't a debate in Parliament.
You weren't invited.
It was Trudeau's hand-picked friends, just like his debates commission.
It's an inside job.
It's a stitch-up.
Oh, sorry, you weren't on the guest list.
And here's what they said.
But you'll notice, even who said it is kept a secret.
That's how a lack of transparent this is.
The expert advisory group on online safety held its eighth session on June 3rd from 1 to 4 p.m. on disinformation.
11 members were present.
The advisory group was joined by government representatives from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Justice, Innovation, Science, and Economic Development, Public Safety, Women and Gender Equality, and the Privy Council Office.
Representatives from the RCMP were also present.
Oh, did you know that your rights were taken away from you in three hours one afternoon earlier this month?
You weren't on the guest list?
Yeah, me neither.
So I'm just going to read a few sentences.
Each one of them is a wonder.
Here's one.
They pointed to, they're talking about the experts.
They pointed to how disinformation was used in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and to undermine democracy in the United States as particular examples of the serious and immediate threats disinformation poses.
They went on to explain how the effects of disinformation are insidious.
Its effects may not be readably apparent, but slowly erode trust and social inclusion.
Hang on, are they saying that Joe Biden was elected because of misinformation or disinformation?
I might actually agree.
The media, including Twitter, banned a legitimate story about Hunter Biden's laptop.
They said it was a fake story, but in fact, that was a lie.
The fact that disinformation leads to trust of institutions so well.
I think that Trudeau has done that on his own, don't you think?
Well, not on his own, with the help of the media party.
How about this pretzel logic?
We can't let you see the other side of the story on the internet because you might choose to believe it instead of believing the official story.
So giving you a choice undermines your ability to make a choice.
I'm serious.
That's what they say.
Let me read it verbatim.
And of course, which the expert is, they keep a secret here.
This is from their report.
Some experts introduced the notion that disinformation undermines the rights of users.
They asserted that by polluting the information environment with false, deceptive, and or misleading information, disinformation undermines citizens' rights to form their own informed opinions.
Some experts stress that disinformation undermines freedom of attention by crowding and diverting citizens' attention and focus on intentionally misleading or deceptive information.
Oh my god, that is so Orwellian.
You're too stupid to know right from wrong.
You might choose the wrong choice, so we're not going to let you have the choice, so you'll have a cleaner choice, not one polluted by the other point of view.
They admit it's hard to define misinformation, by the way, but they say sometimes it's just so obvious.
Quote, some experts noted that there may be certain cases where disinformation is easier to conceptualize and address.
These experts pointed to disinformation campaigns by foreign state actors as an example where the government could more easily identify and address disinformation in a justifiable way.
In these cases where the actors and intent behind disinformation is clear and national security threats are at play, experts explain that the government may justifiably act through legislation.
Got it.
So how about this one again?
I do ask that because, you know, given Canada's support of Ukraine in this current crisis with Russia, I don't know if it's far-fetched to ask, but there is concern that Russian actors could be continuing to fuel things as this protest grows, but perhaps even instigating it from the outset.
That's a state broadcaster pushing lies designed to whip up hysteria, to undermine democracy and hurt our civil liberties, and it worked.
So is that what they had in mind for government disinformation?
So the big idea, and it's mentioned in the National Post article, is for government to outsource this censorship to big tech.
So they'd have Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook and the oligarchs who run Google and YouTube and Twitter.
They would censor you on behalf of the government, but that way people couldn't blame the government.
They couldn't sue the government.
They couldn't use the charter to protect themselves against government.
It's brilliant.
It's privatizing censorship that would otherwise be illegal.
There's this one line in there, though.
Let me read it to you.
However, a few experts argued that a systems-based approach focused on behavior still poses risk.
These experts argued that in order to approximate the behaviors and mechanisms used to create and spread disinformation, services would still have to identify disinformation and therefore make a determination of falsehood.
They questioned how online services would know what behaviors to address without detecting and judging the veracity of content in the first place.
So in other words, to censor untrue things, they would have to know what the untrue things are.
They would have to decide.
And how can Mark Zuckerberg do that?
Imagine making Mark Zuckerberg the arbiter of what is true or not.
He'd love that.
But really, that's terrible, but Trudeau wants that power to tell you what's true or false.
Now, I'm going to stop there because for me to go further would mean opening up literally seven more entire sections that they've published over the last few weeks.
Like I say, there are four different proposed laws and systems here.
Each one has hundreds of pages of background like this, but you can see it's not really transparent.
Who said these things?
Why?
When?
Who objected?
They're hiding who the experts are.
It's really weird.
They have all these advisory panels and expert panels.
You have to trust them that they're experts.
They're all hand-picked by Trudeau.
They're all in on it.
They're all meeting in secret.
It's all rushed.
There's no transcripts.
This is being done outside of Parliament's normal scrutiny.
Normally, that kind of thing is done in a parliamentary committee.
And all of this is being done to benefit Trudeau himself, not the country.
But despite the secrecy, I mean, these summaries I just read to you, that's all you get to know.
They keep it a secret of who said what.
You don't write laws that way.
And of course, the conflicts of interest here are absurd, which is one of the reasons they want it secret.
Not just them all being Trudeau hand-picked staff, but they benefit from this fake industry.
They get grants for it.
They get big grants if they say what Trudeau wants them to say.
I don't know of any real people who are worried about disinformation, except in the way they normally are.
They realize that politicians and the media lie to them, sometimes lie a lot.
They realize that foreign governments lie.
And last two years, there's been a lot of lying, hasn't there?
This isn't just gaslighting by the government.
It's projection.
They're the ones telling the lies, but they're accusing others of doing just that.
This is going to be the big fight.
Four bills in the House were soon to be introduced.
All of them surely unconstitutional, but really, who's going to stop them?
Not Parliament.
Jagmeet Singh says he's on board to give Trudeau the votes he needs and not the courts.
Has any judge done anything in the past two years to stop the lockdowns?
A disastrous civil liberties bonfire that sentenced you to house arrests, shut down your churches and businesses and throw peaceful protesters in prison and seize their bank accounts with no legal recourse.
If the courts won't act on that, you think they're going to act on this?
Our useless charter, our cowardly courts?
My friends, our country's in trouble.
Stay with us for more.
Have you heard of the pandemic treaty that Boris Johnson is looking to sign us into?
No, I don't know.
So what it is, it's a treaty with the World Health Organization that means in the future, future pandemics, as he said, will be run by unelected bureaucrats.
Do you have any comments at all on what you think about that?
Whether you agree with it, disagree with it?
Shouldn't be unelected.
No.
No, I think if something as big as a pandemic happens, so we should choose who we want to deal with it, right?
What do you think about what you're reading?
Do you have a comment at all?
Well, you're quoting The Express.
Yeah, you've got The Express there and you've got another.
The Express is like the biggest pile of shit this country actually produces.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So it kind of completely disengages me from anything you have to say.
It's different sources.
Yeah, but you know, it doesn't mean that it's not happening.
If you're going to quote The Express, you lose all credibility.
Sorry.
But you've got the Telegraph there.
You've got another pile of shit.
No, I agree.
Well, we're independent media, so we don't actually obscribe by them.
But if they're all saying the same thing and they're talking about a pandemic treaty, do you know about the pandemic treaty?
No.
No.
So unelected bureaucrats governing our country.
Working Class Receptivity00:09:30
Well, they've got to be better than Bloody Boris.
We're putting up a sign around Oxford today about the WHO.
Have you guys ever heard of them?
World Health Organization?
Yes.
Yeah.
We're going around, we're doing a campaign because Boris Johnson is looking to join a pandemic treaty, which means we're going to be seeing a reoccurrence of lockdowns, mass mandates, social distancing, all by unelected bureaucrats.
Did you have any comments at all about that?
Total overreach.
Total overreach.
Yeah, bullshit.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
How about yourself?
I'm not a Boris Johnson fan.
Sorry, my voice isn't working right now, but whatever he does, I don't like it.
You guys heard of the World Economic Forum?
Yes.
Yeah.
What was your thoughts on them?
It's all for the elites, right?
Maintaining the elites.
That's the whole gig.
Nothing else to say, really.
I mean, we know they don't really.
The words don't match up with the actions ever.
That's all I can say about that.
It's like overreach through this whole pandemic, you know.
Doesn't he have a great temperament to him, great spirit, a little bit of banter?
I like how he engaged with the lady who doesn't trust any media outlet.
You know what?
In some ways, I feel the same way.
But I think he was, I think it was a great conversation.
I'm impressed by how many people knew about things, were interested in things.
And boy, you know me, I'm a sucker for the jumbotron billboard trucks.
That's what I call them.
I don't know.
I mean, maybe it's because I've been on the no-fly list for over a year.
I just sort of miss hearing those British accents in beautiful UK.
That is our UK reporter.
And what a pleasure to have him join us now via Skype from the UK to talk about his journey throughout the great to see you, my friend.
So that was in Oxford, which is not too far from London itself, am I right?
Yes, that's correct.
Good to be here, Ezra.
And good to see you.
Lewis, you've been doing a great job.
We do a lot of those things.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Lewis, tell us how this came about and where you were.
Where did you take the truck, Lewis?
So we finished our reporting in Davos, right?
And I came home and I sat at home and I thought, I can't just sit around.
I need to get out.
I need to be active.
I need to be doing more in regards to telling people about the WEF, telling people about this pandemic treaty.
So with the help of Rebel News, I set afoot on a journey with a video billboard truck and decided to take it around, sort of like a tour around England.
We started with Oxford, traveled all the way up to Liverpool in the north of England, to Manchester, to Leeds, Sheffield, Leicester, Cambridge, and then finishing back in Parliament Square and Downing Street, where we played that billboard and to get a lot of people's reactions.
And obviously do a bit of streeters and try and figure out what the public think about the WHO, the WEF, and whether they trust them or not.
That's great.
What a wonderful tour of the UK.
I mean, again, I'm just feeling a little sentimental and nostalgic for when I used to be able to fly there.
Hopefully that day will come again.
Tell me, was there a difference?
I mean, you said you ended in Parliament Square.
I've been there.
That's basically what we would call our Parliament Hill.
It's right outside the chamber where the MPs have at it.
And the people on the street, odds are they're connected in some way to the government.
They may be staffers.
They may be bureaucrats.
They may be lobbyists, but that's a very insider group.
I'm guessing you had a very different response when you were up in the working class city of Manchester in the north versus when you were in the snootiest, snobbiest lobby bureaucrat zone of Parliament Square.
That's just my guess.
What was it like in reality?
That was completely correct.
Liverpool, I have to say, was one of the toughest routes we took.
Very working class Liverpool as well, very Labour stronghold.
And getting people's reactions, it was mostly just about dissing Boris when we're up there.
But they didn't understand the fact that the WHO, no matter if Boris even signs this treaty, it doesn't matter who will be in charge, the overarch will be from the WHO.
And trying to explain that to the working class people of Liverpool was quite a difficult one.
I had one guy who didn't get it at all, which you'll see.
And I tried having a good conversation with him and tried to explain.
And, you know, the same sort of buzzwords were coming around because of the word globalist and things like that and refused to shake my hand.
Strangely, though, the place with the most reception and the place with the most people who were engaging was in fact Derby, where it was the birth of the Industrial Revolution, which was very, very insightful.
And obviously, we're probably expecting a fourth one very soon.
But Derby was very interesting.
Over in the north of England, a lot of people were coming out and, you know, very hesitant about the WEF and what they want to be implementing and reorganizing the world.
Even one person off the street mentioned the Great Reset, which took me by surprise.
Parliament Square, there was, in fact, a demonstration happening with a lot of the Unite the Union lot.
So, of course, you know, they love a good union.
They love a good one world government, if you want to even call it that.
So they were quite hostile in that sense.
But, you know, it's all about planting seeds.
It's all about getting the message out and getting people to understand what this pandemic treaty actually means.
Well, Lewis, I wasn't just blowing sunshine at you when I said you've got a great way about you.
And even if someone resists you, you stay positive and not beat.
I think that looks really good on you and looks good on us for Revolution.
So thank you for that.
It's interesting what you're saying because in the United States and I think in Canada, I see a new working class receptivity, receptiveness, I don't know what the word is, to challenging the UN and the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum.
I think the working classes sometimes say, well, you know what?
The parties of the left aren't representing me anymore.
They seem to be in league with big pharma, with the oligarchs, big tech, Wall Street.
So I see sort of a Republican working class.
I see in Canada the prospective Conservative leader Pier Polyev really talking to the working class.
And I was wondering if that would be the case in the UK.
Do people in the UK who have lost their jobs, maybe their factory has been offshored, perhaps, do they still think that these globalist organizations like the UN are actually on their side?
I mean, to me, when you merge big government and big business, I don't think the working class is going to get ahead.
And I don't want to sound like a Marxist, but it's sort of surprising to me if what you're saying is accurate that working class and union members of the UK love the World Economic Forum and the UN.
I don't know how that's possibly in their interests.
I know, and I completely agree with you.
It was a very mixed bag, I'll be honest with you.
It was a mixed bag of people.
You had three types of people on this trip.
You had the people that were awake and understood who the WEF, who the WHO were.
You had people who say, well, I don't know much about that, so I'm not going to give my opinion.
And then when you explain it to them, they kind of seize up a bit and they go, actually, I know, I don't know, so I'm not going to make a comment on them.
And there was other people who say, well, anyone but Boris and, you know, the WHO are essential.
And that's what's very, very, A, confusing and B, fascinating at the same time.
I think you're right.
There is a definite Republican conservative style working class, I want to say, faction that is emerging that are sick and tired of these unelected bureaucrats over in Switzerland, Brussels, wherever, dictating what's going on to over 194 countries and implementing their vision of the world.
So I find it fascinating that these so-called anti-establishment types, left-wing, working class-styled people are actually siding with the corporations.
They're siding with the United Nations and they're siding with huge global leaders that are part of the WEF.
It's just, it's unbelievable, really.
So this trip was essential, I think.
And it was also a fascinating one to see all of that play out.
Yeah, you know, I enjoyed your coverage when you went with that team to Davos, Switzerland, and then up to Geneva briefly at the end.
In Davos, that's where the World Economic Forum meets, and then Geneva, not too far away in the same country, is where the World Health Organization met.
Driving Change: Davos Insights00:09:03
And it was interesting to see the police give you guys a hard time and the delegates really clam up, run away from the cameras, promise to get back to you, and not.
It looked like you had a real education there.
I felt like I learned a lot through your eyes.
I wonder what an ordinary Brit in Liverpool or Derby or Sheffield would have thought of what you saw when you were there.
Did you mention that to anyone, or you didn't really go that deep with anyone that you had been there and you had seen things, or was it just not a time for that kind of deep conversation because you were really just talking to people as you were walking by?
Well, I'll tell you what, it was a very intense trip.
So it was basically a wild goose chase to chase the billboard to the next city, quickly jump out, set up, and then quickly get some streeters.
So I would have loved, if I had more time, I would have loved to have gone in about Davos and seeing what if they even knew about Davos, where they meet, what they talk about.
But, you know, you know what it's like.
Yeah, you've got 30 seconds and people are busy and they don't know who you are.
And I know, I know the feeling's tough.
Most people are too busy to stop.
Well, let me ask you this: how long was this journey around the UK?
I tell you, I would have loved to.
I mean, that's my kind of tourism, frankly.
How long was the journey?
And was it the same driver the whole time?
Yes, so I went with a driver and he acted as my cameraman at the same time.
Oh, that's nice.
The person who was going with the billboard, he was doing his own thing, and we would coordinate via WhatsApp and send locations.
It was a three-day trip, starting meeting in Croydon, driving to Oxford, getting out an hour at least, and then, or I think it was two hours, driving up to Liverpool, doing a few hours there, stay overnight, and driving from Liverpool to Manchester, which was about an hour and a bit, Sheffield, Leeds, Derby, staying overnight in Nottingham and doing Nottingham, then going to Leicester, Cambridge, and then finishing in London, Victoria.
It was a three-day trip, which was jam-packed full of just driving, having a laugh, talking, and yeah, just trying to get people's opinions and trying to wake people up on what's going on.
Well, that sounds great.
I want to tell you that there's no such thing as a three-day around Canada trip.
I mean, it's more than three days just to go one way, and that's not even going north and south.
So, I guess in the UK, you can do it by truck.
Did you talk at all to the guy driving the billboard truck?
I mean, was he completely apolitically said, Hey, man, I'm just driving a truck, don't ask me questions, or did he was he curious about the message that was on the back of his vehicle for three days?
Yeah, so he's done a lot of political campaigns before, um, which was cool.
So, that was that was good.
A lot of it, he was uh, he was explaining a lot of it was sort of anti-Tory party stuff.
So, you know, you kind of had an idea of that, but he was pretty apolitical when it came to it.
He was just there going, you know, what I'll drive your truck.
I don't mind.
I don't actually mind what's on the side of it.
Yeah, um, I think he did go away having a think, but he actually did take a parking ticket for us where I think you'll see the clip soon.
But it was actually in Oxford, where that billboard was positioned when I was interviewing that lady who said about the evening standard and the telegraph.
Shortly after, a traffic warden or a parking ticket guy just came up and started having an altercation with him.
And he goes, I'm not moving it.
You know, I'm not moving it.
I'll take the fine.
I don't care.
Which was really, really cool of him.
So, yeah, props to him for doing that for us.
Well, that's what a great adventure.
Now, I heard just before I came into the studio that this sort of went viral in the UK.
Now, tell me what that means.
Who picked it up and how?
Was it just the billboard itself, or did people like the URL expose the WHO.co?
What happened?
And who did it seem to be picked up by?
So we started uploading, of course, the initial right we're going to start this journey, expose the WHO.co.uk, follow this.
I'm going to be tweeting out all the pictures of the billboards, where they're going to go in terms of locations.
And it's only when we arrived into Liverpool and I put the Liverpool billboard where it just says the WEF and the WHO do not belong here.
And it made a Zoom into the center.
It just blew up on Twitter.
I'm not quite sure who got hold of it, but I think it's hit over 150,000 views just on Twitter alone.
So that was quite extraordinary.
And Manchester as well picked up.
And a lot of people were saying, oh, well, come to Glasgow, come to Cornwall.
We need this in Germany.
We need this in Canada, Australia.
So people were really talking about it.
So there's definitely something to say when we talk about the WHO and the WEF.
And we fly billboards like that down Central City.
So it's very effective and very cool.
That's great.
Well, I love those billboards.
Lewis, I haven't been in the UK since before the pandemic began.
I used to go there from time to time, especially on free speech matters.
And Rebel News used to fly the flag a lot in the UK.
Now, you picked up the flag for us.
Did anyone recognize Rebel News or come up to you and say, oh, hi, who are you?
Or was there any brand recognition of the Rebel still on the streets of the UK?
There was.
It happened in Oxford.
A person came up to me and said, Oh, I've seen your reports with I've interviewed, of course, Steve Laws, who we've covered a few times.
So there were some.
So we spoke a little bit about that.
We were also in Derby, and there were three women that actually came up and said, Oh, we're fans of Rebel.
And they knew the camera guy as well because he'd done some freedom movement stuff as well.
So we all ended up getting together after we'd finished and had lots of great conversation.
And yeah, it was great.
We had a very mixed bag of people, but there was a few people who recognized Rebel and the Rebel brand, which was fantastic.
Well, that's good to hear.
I mean, the UK is a very interesting political place.
I don't want to pretend that I know it, but in some ways, it's a stronger and healthier democracy than we have here in Canada.
Your parliament doesn't have the same rigid party discipline that we do.
So we saw, for example, during the lockdowns, you had dozens of Tory MPs criticize the party.
And that's acceptable in UK democracy.
You have media like, for example, GB News, which is on actual terrestrial TV.
And I'd say they're pretty good.
I mean, they have Nigel Farage on all the time as just an example that our Canadians would recognize.
But Mark Stein is on there and they really talk about free speech.
So in some ways, I think the UK is a healthier political culture than in Canada.
And it's not as barren as in Canada.
It's not as desperate here.
But I still think there's a lot of room in the UK for the rebel approach, especially these little campaigns that we like to do, like the truck.
So, folks, to see all of Lewis's work on this tour, go to expose the WHO.co.uk.
Okay, Louis, great to catch up with you.
Thanks for taking the time.
Thanks, Ezra.
I really appreciate it.
It's been fun.
All right, keep it up.
There you have it, Louis Brackpool, our UK correspondent.
Stay with us more ahead.
Hey, welcome back.
Your letters to me as Z-Tracks, or Z-Tracks, as our American friends would say.
Western politicians think in terms of the next election cycle.
China thinks in terms of decades, if not planning a century ahead.
Yeah, I mean, you're right.
They have a long view as dictatorships can take.
Then the Soviets also had their five-year plans.
Sometimes you want that in a government.
Sometimes the government has to think longer term.
And I think in terms of military, you're probably right.
An aircraft carrier can take 10 years from conception to reality.
So you have to have a longer time horizon.
I don't know.
I saw some interesting reactions in my commentary on those Chinese aircraft carriers.
I believe that they're serious.
And by the way, China's not just on the high seas.
They're in space.
They have a Chinese space station.
They put a satellite on the far side of the moon and landed it there.
That's no easy feat.
Someone nicknamed the atheist said, if you're going to lose a war, lose with pride.
Pride in the Rodeo00:06:36
Yeah, it's pretty embarrassing, isn't it?
Tony Elliot says, the beard looks good on you.
I was talking to my mom last night, and she says it makes me look old.
I said, mom, that's sort of the point.
I am sort of old, and I thought maybe that would make me look wiser than I am.
But no, she sort of votes for me to shave it off.
She was fairly clear on that.
The Mrs., on the other hand, is mildly positive, but thank you for the feedback.
I just, I realize why I never grew a beard earlier in my life.
I just don't have the manpower.
You know, anyway, I'm talking too much about myself.
I think I'm probably going to shave it all off in a little while.
Folks, that's the show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Rebel World Headquarters, see you at home.
Good night.
And keep fighting for freedom.
Adam Seuss here for Rebel News, and we're in Cootts, Alberta at the Coots Rodeo, checking out some of the action here today.
Obviously, Coots was thrust onto the world map with the trucker blockade that took place here.
But we're going to talk to some of the folks here, learn a little bit more about the town and about the rodeo lifestyle down here, as well as get some people's perspective on indeed the historical events that transpired down at the border.
The thing about small town rodeo is this one.
It's a very engaging atmosphere.
It's very community-based.
You're right up there, pretty close to the action.
And the other thing is, this is the road to the Stampede.
So, you know, the guys that and gals that ride at the Stampede, they started here.
They started in the circuit.
And this is what they'll do all year to qualify for the big rodeo.
So Stampede's an invitational and the big CFR and all the finals and so on.
So yeah, you betcha.
It starts right here.
What's it like coming out to these rodeos, these small town rodeos?
What are the people like?
What's the vibe like out here?
Everyone's super friendly.
I'm ridiculous for getting as nervous as I do because everybody is super friendly and super welcoming.
And like people cheer and they're happy for you even when they don't know you, which nobody knows me yet.
So yeah, it's a lot of fun.
How much do you think sort of the toughness of cowboys, the western spirit, the independence, the resilience, so much of what's on display here at the rodeo factored into what went down at the border?
Well, what went on at the border?
To me, it needed to happen a little bit.
Some of it did go probably a little too far, but that could play a big factor in the Cooch rodeo.
Love it.
You know, you hear the Canadian anthem get sung out here and it actually makes you start crying because you know what everybody's gone through down here all over Canada.
It's beautiful.
Rather be here supporting these guys than out at the stampede.
Yeah.
Eventually, some of these guys might wind up there, they're hoping, but you get up and close and get that personal experience.
Now, we've talked to a few folks about like the sort of grit, perseverance, the bravery just to hop up on here.
How much do you think that factored into the facts that the Coots became very much on the global stage because of the trucker rebellion and very much the Western attitude of grit and perseverance factored into that?
I think it factored in quite a lot.
I mean, you especially like just now, just finished crying watching the girls out there doing their barrel racing.
They just go out there and give it their all.
These people don't want to put up with any they're living their lives.
Just leave us alone.
It's great to be back here.
I rode in the Freedom Riders protest that happened just up at Milk River here, geez, a couple months ago, and then the next day hopped in my truck and went to Ottawa.
It is good to be back here.
It's good to be back under happier circumstances in a way more open Alberta.
Is it perfect?
Not yet.
But again, that's the whole point: this is a community that fights.
This is the community that stands up for what it believes in.
And it's a community with a very, very strong moral code and it values that.
Truckers weren't really, they weren't any problem at all.
Like it was a little bit of a pain for the local people because of the getting in and out of town, you know, because of the with the RCMP and stuff.
But that's about it.
The truckers weren't a problem.
So no lack of surprises down here in Coots.
If you could just introduce yourself and tell us why people might know your daughter at the very least.
We're Stan and Bonnie McBurney and Tamara Leach is our daughter.
We were on the convoy with her, took her to Ottawa.
That's absolutely incredible.
So what's it like, obviously?
Was she like this growing up?
Is this just very out of character?
Is this just out of a necessity based on what happened globally?
Tell us about, from your perspective, what happened with Tamara Leach?
Well, she's been very interested in everything that's going on and what isn't fair.
And she's not one to sit back and just let things happen.
So yeah, we're proud of what she stood up for.
She's certainly one of those sort of historical figures that Canada is going to look back on while this is going on.
How proud are you of what she did?
Definitely very proud.
Yeah, that both of us are.
And from your perspective, any thoughts?
We're asking folks down here at the rodeo that sort of southern Alberta spirit of grit and perseverance and all that good stuff.
How much do you think that factored into the fact that Tamara was willing to take that stand?
Well, I'm not sure whether it's Alberta, it's just Tamara's personality.
And you have to remember that she is one quarter cream and she just does what she's going to do because that's what she does.
And I'm so proud of her.
Wow, I can't even button my shirt up.
Well, I think that says a lot about Alberta, period.
Alberta Cowboys, Alberta Farmers.
I mean, at some point, you have enough.
And the toughness that these guys grew up on, I mean, most of the farms around here, you know, you saw local competitors, they're all part of Rodeo, which so they're rodeo tough too.
It doesn't matter, cowboys, cowgirls, farmers, same thing.
I mean, without them, we aren't putting food on our tables.
We aren't growing animals to come to Rodeo with, right?
So, and it all goes hand in hand.
And yeah, Alberta Tough.
Yep, that I would say Alberta Tough next to Rodeo Tough.
And it was good to see those boys do what they did.
And, you know, it ended not the way everybody wanted it to, but it was still good.
And I mean, the community here supported each and every one of them.
So it was good, good to see happen here in Alberta for us to take a stand for Canada.
Well, that is a wrap from Coots, Alberta.
The rodeo has just finished up here.
An incredible experience to be here talking to some of the folks about small town rodeo.
I encourage you to check one out.
It's an experience.
Unlike anything else, you can get right up close to the action.
We also talked to some people on their perspectives about the Coots blockade that unfolded not all that long ago.
Incredible to garner their opinions.
I'm a little bit sweatier and a little bit more covered in mud than when the day started, but after spending a day at the rodeo, I absolutely cannot complain.
I want to thank you all so much for tuning in for Rebel News.